Continuation of reply to "Harv, You Might Read This Too" post of Dr. Dick's; which was in reply to my earlier "Unknown Problem? What You Can Do To Prepare..." post.
So I agree with your insight "That is, I am working with
something I have defined. So I know exactly what it is. The fact
that I call it "time" is actually completely beside the point".
I understand exactly what you are saying here: the very act of
defining something guarantees certainty just like going into a
lolly shop of possibilities and saying "please, I'll have this,
that, and some of those, and some of these with that" and call
that "my mixture".
So what happened here? You had many POSSIBILITIES (reminds me of
Schrodinger equation: all pattern-comparison (2-D)(complex number
weighted) ALTERNATIVES open to the system)
and you chose to dream up a DEFINITION (a particular MATCH, of 2
or more possibilities - isn't that a "RATE OF CHANGE of all the
possibilities as they change from 1 to the matched 1?)
You chose to study the effects of your definition, on all those
possibilities. That means you are going to look at ANOTHER VIEW
within the possibilities. If you call this view the "reference
view" or "new view" or "time observation" you have Schrodinger's
It is a description of dreaming up a definition (rate of change,
often a localised zero-change) in a field of possibilities
(alternatives open to the system, 2-D layering), and studying the
effect (new views of, so new time-frames) of that (arbitrary)
definition. From Roger Penrose's description of Schrodinger's
equation; after replacing "complex number" with "2-D" (or could
Schrodinger's equation: rate of change with respect to time, of
the entire 2-D weighted sum of the alternatives open to the
Dr. Dick: ..."turns out there is no way to differentiate between
what I have defined and what everyone else calls time". I
understand that point; note that if you look closely at how
people use "time", you can obtain your version straight from
"Time" involves a reference movement (e.g. hand of clock,
vibrating atom, rotating Earth) over a reference length, with a
self-reference aspect to maintain consistency. (The self-
reference is the point about which a clock-hand moves, that is
constant in relative position for each move' or the return of an
oscillation over its just travelled path). So a specific set
(length) of an examined set (several self-referent lengths) from
a set of numbers (any clock you want).
I guess you partially differentiate a set from an examined set
that was partially differentiated from a set of numbers.
I do have in mind your "tag" time; as I understood that idea some
time ago! I do have in mind that "before" and "after" patterns
can also be called "here" and "there" patterns- the key is
"comparing and matching two patterns"..I have recently explained
that when you "compare and match two patterns, one being a self-
referent pattern"; you have "time".
I wrote: "This subdividing of the problem into a sequence of such
patterns will itself impose constraints on how the problem can
appear and how it can change with respect to one such pattern
versus any sum of the others versus the whole problem."
Dr. Dick wrote: "Whoa! If this subdividing of the problem imposes
constraints then I had better not do it because it is very
important that I impose no constraints on this unknown problem.
If I do impose constraints, then the possibility exists that
reality may violate those constraints. It's comments like this
that convince me that you don't understand what I'm doing".
It's comments like THAT (of yours) that I have been starved of;
and appreciate, and give me much fresh information on just what
you ARE doing!'
O.K., I can remove those constraints. Incidentally, I'm not sure
that your model requires anything other than an arbitrary bounded
set for demonstration purposes. Consider demonstrating the ideas
with 52 cards. O.K., I shall subdivide these 52 cards into a
series that does not have constraints: simply regard EACH
subdivision as itself involving ALL the possibilities! Initially
that sounds crazy, how can you subdivide 52 cards into say 52 +
52 + 52 + 52 + 52 + 52 + ....n52 ?
By considering that any of these '52's are "possibility fields"
(reminds me of how physicists call every subatomic item, a wave
function) that could contain an actuality of e.g. zero cards, or
one card, or two cards, ...or 52 cards!
But whatever they do contain, IF the first 52 contains an actual
1 card (so is not 52), then none of the rest can actually contain
52 cards. Now you have a constraint, but only when you made an
observation and saw just how many cards were in one of the "52
card possibility waves".
So one can formulate this without constraints it seems, but as
soon as you partially differentiate your "encompassing of all
possibilities" you perturb all the others because if you say
DEFINE something in your possibility field, if you MATCH 2
patterns, all the other possibilities are going to be "moving"
relative to your choice of perspective, moving relative to that
definition-based view you have.
Since the "52 cards" was arbitrary; I can just use "W" to idicate some unknown number of cards. I can then place "+/- u" next to each "W" to account for the fact that there may be more or less than W cards in a particular W; as "W" is the TOTAL number of cards.
Of course, it may turn out that all the "W" s in my series are zeroes, and one possible W is in actuality the whole W.
"Zero-state oscillators"? That's exactly what P.A.M. Dirac proposed in his scheme.
So have: SUM OF W+/-u + W+/-u + W+/-u + W+/-u ...+ nW+/-u
I wrote: "What you can do is make sure you understand these
necessary relationships (which happen to be the laws of physics)
and do not confuse these patterns with the problem itself."
Dr. Dick wrote: "Now here you simply seem to be asserting (with
no evidence that I can see) that the conclusions of my work are
correct. You can't use the assumption something is correct to
prove it is correct; that is completely circular."
I wasn't assuming your work was correct! I found out this result
from scratch myself; I discovered some time ago the explanatory-
resolving power of pattern-matching; and recently obtained an
understanding of the origin of some key physics equations (see my
post "Step By Step. Any Errors Here?"
Continuing with answering your comments; re: the bit I wrote
about "coding" that you thought was confusing. O.K.; to clarify
what I meant:
Consider: problem: the order of cards in a pack.
Separate out: (1) the process of discovering the order of cards,
(2) the actual order of those cards:
The process: involves a kind of re-ordering of the pack - laying
it out in a new arrangement - a series of rows say - effectively
this layout is a 'code' containing the secret of the order the
cards were in when the pack was stacked.
But you must know how you went about laying the cards out; or you
might misread this layout (have to know if it's meant to be read
as columns or as rows, for example).
"How you laid the cards out" is your problem-viewing and problem-
solving process. You don't want to muddle that 'code' that YOU
MADE (that you DEFINED, so you UNDERSTAND) with the mystery you
are trying to solve (what order were the cards stacked in? That
is, the 'code' in the problem itself).
Know the difference between the problem, and the method of
solution; so as to clearly see the solution. What seemed familiar
about that idea; was an idea I came across, in a book I read
about the ethics of psychoanalysis!.
The idea was, if one person was listening to another trying to
figure out a personal puzzle; it is important to avoid the puzzle-
solving relationship (analytic contract) getting entangled with
the puzzle itself; Thus, the idea is to analyse and disentangle
any muddling of the personal puzzle with the analytic contract
If you read fully the post "Some Homework On Information Theory";
you will find details on "the representation theorem". It is
surely obvious what the deep connections of that theorem are, to
your work. .
Regarding your answer to my question on how do you know if you
are being logically consistent: Quoting your comment: "Logically
consistent??? I leave that judgement to others more qualified
than myself. As far as I am concerned, I am being logically
consistent; however, I could certainly be in error as no one has
ever taken the trouble to follow that logic!"
But when others give you their judgement, how will you judge
"As far as I am concerned, I am being logically consistent"- that
is exactly my point: your basic foundation is between you and
Existence! You have said in the past that I am not scientific
when I am a "witness"; but here I think you acknowledge that you
are a witness; your judgement call here, on logical consistency,
IS YOUR CALL.